(1/10) In Jan, I posted how it would be amazing to have a tool that synergizes bidirectional linking and an attribute system. In June, it was like X'mas came early when I was invited to test the alpha version. Here's how Tana blew my mind🧵
(2/10) Since then, it's been tough to hold the silence on this incredible tool that I've had the fortune of testing. I mean, just look at the team working on this. If this doesn't inspire confidence in what this product is and will become, I don't know what will.
(3/10) While communicating about bugs and features, I found them to be forward-thinkers, community-driven, and very open-minded. The UI and UX are very well thought-out.
(4/10) Sure, there may be some attribute systems out there already. But Tana is a different animal completely. It has 3 powerful features (and more) that take it to the next level apart from other apps: (1) Powerful Tags, (2) Attribute Fields and (3) Intuitive Queries.
(5/10) Synergistic fields and tags: Tags work with fields to bring about a completely new and intuitive workflow. When you tag a node in Tana, it converts it into an object. This means that you can customize a fully featured template for each tag.
(6/10) Here's an example of the kind of stuff you can define. You can also predefine #day which will define a daily template automatically everyday.
(7/10) There's more - Tana has intuitive queries that unlock new workflows, with customisable views for Table views, card views, kanban views... Your imagination lets you unlock powerful workflows customized for your own needs.
(8/10) And yes, there's more: Collaborative workspaces. Shareable tags across workspaces. Speed demon. Customisable keyboard shortcuts. Command panel. "Annotations". Conversations within Tana. And there's so much more brewing behind-the-scenes - You have no idea.
(9/10) Well, my mind was already blown the first I was introduced to testing this product with super early features, and am so grateful to Tana to have offered this opportunity. Now I'm really excited because I know friends in the PKM sphere will go nuts for this.
(10/10) I definitely do miss the local-graphs in obsidian and prose-writing. But I've found myself doing more of my work within Tana. It's still developing but it is already so functional. Hop on the early access list while it's open: tana.inc
⭐And yes, it's so good I had to create a typical twitter thread. PKM friends whom I've had the pleasure of discussing workflows with can hit me up by PM if you want to know more.
Next: Check out @cortexfutura's video tour of the UI 🪄
I made a video about a year ago showing how i used this on obsidian using its local graph view - so please kindly don't parrot the 'graph view is useless' meme (I have so much to say about that).
While bridging it over to Tana, I've done a lot of iteration and modifications so far. Here are my changes and thoughts about it along the way:
Case against large systems: Is having a large PKM system or graph that good? It might be a sign of poor filtration of information and "pkm hygiene"
The argument about large systems is that you get to have returns from previous efforts, with the expectation of compounding and building on previous knowledge
The issue with larger systems: Strained organisation, poorer search, cumulation of maintenance tasks and reviews, constantly shifting contexts and it becomes very noisy. With so much noise, information becomes useless when unfocused, and more effort is placed in maintenance
To think out of the box, you first need to destroy the box
Just like Plato's cave - you don't know what it's like outside of the box until you get out of it. The concept of the cave being everything you knew has to shatter completely.
The first way to see something this integrated and invisible, just like water to fish, is to watch for the "glitches" and notice inconsistencies in your ideas about reality.
To start with, most "modern Zettelkastens" already aren't the original implementations, neither do they carry similar principles. Zettelkasten-inspired, yes. Original zettelkasten, unfortunately not really.
An example of this is the ongoing debate of analog vs digital zettelkasten. An analog's advantage is slower, deliberate processing with constrained space. This increases recall and utilises the advantage of pen-paper flexibility - the ability to just scribble, draw, etc.
Currently thinking hard on how connection of thoughts lead to higher order thoughts, abstraction vs elaboration
How do we make things come together without serendipity/luck? Without proximity or similarity? How do we tap the counterintuitive?
Doesn't combination of level 1 thought, however connected, just lead to thoughts of the same level? Does it neccesarily provide higher abstractions? Or does a pattern emerge from comparison? It seems like higher order thoughts emerge from pattern emergence